Paul Louden wrote:
>> So I'm wondering if one easy (and free!) thing someone could do is to
>> collect this information together in some kind of "Future targets"
>> wiki page, to try and promote these as tasks people could work on.
>
> We should probably set some minimum requirement for the "future target"
> page so that it's not just cluttered with every MP3 player someone would
> like to see a port to.

I agree.

> For example, I think a reasonable minimum could be that an exploit or
> method for loading unsigned code is already known. Basically, a future
> target should explicitly be one where we know we aren't completely
> locked out?

I'm thinking that in order to be useful, we should try and keep the
number of targets on that page relatively small - if the page turns into
another "Target Status" page with 100s of entries, then it will lose its
impact.

Whilst having a known exploit is good, I'm not sure that should be a
requirement for this page. After all, we also want people to work on
exploits.

Maybe the page should focus on unsupported targets which are
"interesting" or "worthwhile" in some way. This could either mean that
they are very popular (the newer ipods, the Zune), or they are models
which are currently available to buy (and are likely to be available for
the time it takes to port Rockbox), or they have interesting hardware we
would like to support in Rockbox.

But basically, I think the only rule should be that targets are only
added to that page with the general agreement of the community. i.e.
someone would nominate a target for inclusion, and then we would try to
reach a consensus...